14-24, 2.8. Volume anamorphosis correction

[doug_santo]

<p>Hey Ralph that looks good.</p>

<p>My father-in law is also Ralph!</p>

<p>I should also say that I did not spend much time on my conversion. DXO may be much more functional than my example.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>For the benefit of anybody who reads this thread in the future...</p>

<p>First off, the OP's image isn't a group portrait, it's a group candid, at best (not necessarily a bad thing). If you couldn't get the "right lens" for a photo, the right venue, and the right crowd (one that would all look at the camera after getting into place), nor the right light (many are in shadows), then you were going to be doomed to get the photo you got. It has nothing to do with a lens defect whatsoever. I don't mean to be "crass", and it remains that this might have been the best you could do with that group under the circumstances. Bravo! You at least have a "fix-able" shot of what is no doubt a special memory. I went to a reunion recently, and my uncle who shot the photos at it went to GREAT pains to work VERY hard to plan, set up, and execute the group portraits. They are stunning... and required foresight, good light, good location (thought out and planned ahead of time), and cooperation from all.</p>

<p>Second, this is why a lot of people caution that the 14-24 is a SPECIAL lens. What is erroneously being called by some a lens "distortion" problem is actually a FEATURE and BENEFIT of a lens that is this stinkin' wide. You WANT to throw foreground elements HUGELY out of proportion to background elements. It is the point of the lens. You WANT this "distortion" when you shoot at 14mm on an FX sensor. But this lens requires a LOT of work to get good photos, and this is not the kind of photo it's designed for. I am on DX, not FX, but when I shoot people, my "ultra-wide" (Tokina 11-16, equiv 16.5 - 24 field of view) stays in the bag or even at home. My 35 and 50 are on the camera. My only people photos so far with that 11-16 are intentionally humorous close-up shots. I actually actively AVOID shooting anything with people with that lens.</p>

<p>imho, this OP might have been better off with a 17-35 than a 14-24, as I think most are. But that... another day...</p>

[rwreich]

<p>Thanks Doug! You know, he kinda looks like a Ralph. One thing that helped in that image is that I manipulated the horizon so that your father-in law's head was more centered over his body. This creates the feeling that the weight of his upper body could have been supported by his legs.</p>

<p>Back to the op's posting, though... I think that you're going to have to come to a compromise with the space in some way, shape, or form. The problem is that any correction to the perspective of the people in the image will result in a bulging of the architecture. So, one compromise is to fix the people with the lens correction feature in Photoshop CS4 and then crop out all of the curved surfaces of the buildings and windows in the background. Here's a (not really perfect) example:</p><div></div>

[doug_santo]

<p>I think the 14-24/2.8 is better for shots like this.</p><div></div>

[faheyphotography]

<p>This was posted on the photo of the week thread last week. Not sure who posted it, or what link it came from, but to whoever posted it/create the image, thanks! Hope it helps.<br />-Ryan</p><div></div>

[faheyphotography]

<p>(continued...)</p><div></div>

[psartman]

<p>Thank you, Pete, the Spherize filter (used in one dimension) is exactly the answer I was looking for when I found this thread via Google. It really doesn't matter if this issue is a "flaw" or not, it's about solving problems. People have lots of reasons for shooting the way they do, with the equipment they do, whether pro or not.</p>